Significantly increased detection rate of drugs of abuse in urine following the introduction of new German driving licence re-granting guidelines

In this paper we present the first assessment of the new German driving licence re-granting medical and psychological assessment (MPA) guidelines by comparing over 3500 urine samples tested under the old MPA cut-offs to over 5000 samples tested under the new MPA cut-offs. Since the enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique (EMIT) technology used previously was not sensitive enough to screen for drugs at such low concentrations, as suggested by the new MPA guidelines, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) screening kits were used to screen for the drugs of abuse at the new MPA cut-offs. The above comparison revealed significantly increased detection rates of drug use or exposure during the rehabilitation period as follows: 1.61, 2.33, 3.33, and 7 times higher for 11-nor-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol-9-carboxylic acid (THC-COOH), morphine, benzoylecgonine and amphetamine respectively. The present MPA guidelines seem to be more effective to detect non-abstinence from drugs of abuse and hence to detecting drivers who do not yet fulfil the MPA requirements to regain their revoked driving licence.     

Putting security governance to the test: conceptual,empirical, and normative challenges

Security governance has featured prominently in recent debates about fragmentation, informalization, and privatization in the increasingly diverse field of security policy. It has inspired much valuable research. Yet, there are not just very different conceptual understandings of security governance; there is also a lack of clarity regarding its empirical manifestations and normative connotations. After a decade of research, the special issue therefore puts security governance to the test and scrutinizes its analytical and political pitfalls and potentials. This editorial briefly reviews the rise of security governance, identifies central conceptual, empirical, and normative challenges that need to be addressed, and introduces the individual contributions to this special issue.     

Towards security governance as a critical tool: a conceptual outline

This article argues that security governance can and should be reframed as a critical tool that enables us to understand and reappraise concrete practices of security provision. Security governance needs to move beyond the functional mapping of different governing arrangements and the presumption that security governance leads to effective and legitimate problem-solving in a quasi-automatic manner. In this article, we propose a framework that identifies the essential characteristics of security governance and turns them into critical questions with the aim to reveal persisting frictions and dilemmas. First, we trace the rise of security governance as concept and practice over the past decade and identify its central characteristics with regard to prerequisites, structures and consequences. Second, we reframe the core characteristics of security governance into critical questions and thereby develop an understanding of security governance as a critical tool. Finally, we illustrate the relevance of this approach with examples from EU security governance.     

Some measurements of achievement orientation

A series of interrelated studies of achievement orientation, stemming from theoretical work by Kluckhohn and Parsons, are compared. It is found that this orientation consists of at least four separate components: (1) “activism” or “mastery”; (2) “trust”; (3) “independence of family”; and (4) “occupational primacy” or “accomplishment.” The first three are positively correlated with one another and with socioeconomic status; the fourth is negatively correlated with the others and with status. The findings are interpreted in the light of theoretical problems about achievement orientation, social mobility, and economic development.     

Constructions of Effectiveness and the Rationalization of Counterterrorism Policy: The Case of Biometric Passports

This article argues that counterterrorism effectiveness is a distinct, discursive construction that politicians use to offer a rationalization of measures adopted under conditions of inherent uncertainty. Even in the face of multiple limits of knowability, decision makers need to offer “rational” justifications complying with persisting expectations of “evidence-based” policy and sound deliberation in modern societies. This article develops a new perspective on the political role of counterterrorism effectiveness highlighting the symbolic importance of knowledge claims and prevailing standards of modern rationality. It illustrates its arguments through a case study on the justification of biometric passports as an effective counterterrorist tool.